|
Title: Will the UK decision make solutions more or less likely? Post by: zukiphile on October 11, 2007, 06:30:38 AM Quote Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ By Noel Sheppard | October 9, 2007 - 00:55 ET Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth Does spreading falsehoods about AGW help or hinder the process? Title: Re: Will the UK decision make solutions more or less likely? Post by: Major Zee Lee on October 11, 2007, 08:58:58 AM Wow! The source is a blog! I am converted, AGW is a hoax, Al Gore is the High Priest of the Church of Gore and I'm gonna buy myself a SUV just to make a point! :o
Houm... no. Rather no. :angel: Seriously, I think it's stupid so much fuss about Al Gore. It's a friggin showman/politician with a friggin flick. AGW is, houm, Science. On the other hand, I am curious to know when exactly will Chanel 4 apologize about all the lies, inaccuracies and manipulation that swamped "The great global warming swindle"... I am not asking them to correct the show -else they would be left with about 15 minutes of flick-, but at least they should acknowledge it was opinionated bovine fecal matter... Title: Re: Will the UK decision make solutions more or less likely? Post by: zukiphile on October 11, 2007, 09:44:09 AM Wow! The source is a blog! The decision is that of a court in the UK. If you have an issue with the court's decision about Gore's misrepresentations, that might be more appropriate in another thread. Try to stick to the topic. I don't see anything in your post about its impact on solutions. Title: Re: Will the UK decision make solutions more or less likely? Post by: Major Zee Lee on October 11, 2007, 12:49:50 PM Impact? Null. The isssue is not Al Gore or his flick. The real issue is Science, and what Science says has been crystal clear for years.
Title: Re: Will the UK decision make solutions more or less likely? Post by: zukiphile on October 11, 2007, 01:16:17 PM Impact? Null. The isssue is not Al Gore or his flick. The real issue is Science, and what Science says has been crystal clear for years. Well, part of the issue is Gore's film and its misrepresentations. I doubt that those misrepresentations have zero impact on the lessons you think are so clear. Title: Re: Will the UK decision make solutions more or less likely? Post by: Major Zee Lee on October 11, 2007, 01:26:45 PM Impact? Null. The isssue is not Al Gore or his flick. The real issue is Science, and what Science says has been crystal clear for years. Well, part of the issue is Gore's film and its misrepresentations. I doubt that those misrepresentations have zero impact on the lessons you think are so clear. We should not mistake the different spheres fo the issue. The foudnation, Scienc,e si very solid. The next sphere, informed opinion based upon responsible popularization, is realtively well shaped although it's been permeated by the next sphere. The next sphere is public opinion, usually uninformed and shaped by opinion makers -enter here Al Gore and the denialist campaign. The alst sphere is political action, which roughly tracks the sphere before -thus, continental Europe is very aware out of a high public awareness, UK opinion is being cross-tainted by cultural similarity with the USA and USA is messy out of an uninformed and uninterested public opinion. So, this news roughly only affect the English speaking populace, which is only a part of the issue. Title: Re: Will the UK decision make solutions more or less likely? Post by: Reasoned Faith on October 11, 2007, 04:33:30 PM The difficulty with your narrative Major is that the science of AGW is A)not foundational and B) not solid. The idea that science is always objective and mostly correct is false. We don't have to go back very far to confirm this reality. From the time of Aristotle up until 50 years ago there was near unanimity within the science community that the Universe was in equilibrium. The greatest scientist of all time agreed and that bias caused him to make several fundamental mathematical errors in order to support his bias. He called it his "greatest blunder".
Likewise Climate Science has undergone several step changes and major reversals in the past 40 years but still the fundamentals supporting the theory of AGW are simply not understood even today. The solution to this is more study and less bias. This court seems to be doing its part to that end. Title: Re: Will the UK decision make solutions more or less likely? Post by: zukiphile on October 12, 2007, 05:53:24 AM The difficulty with your narrative Major is that the science of AGW is A)not foundational and B) not solid. More on the court's decision. Quote One Man Challenges the World According to Gore by Dymphna Stewart Dimmock of Kent, England deserves a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize, though I doubt he’ll make the list. This is the man who took Britain’s Department of Children, Schools and Families to court over their decision to brainwash children via a mandatory showing in British school’s of Al Gore’s highly politicized “An Inconvenient Truth.” Mr. Dimmock took them to court and won a surprising victory. The High Court judge will allow the film to be shown, but it has to be accompanied by a study guide explaining the errors in Mr. Gore’s sensationalist diatribe. Actually the words the judge used to describe the film were “alarmist” and “Armageddon.” *** Al Gore and other global warming enthusiasts are fond of reciting that 2,611 scientists have signed a letter stating that global warming poses a serious and real threat. Yet, only about one in ten of the so-called 2611 scientists had scientific expertise. And only 5 out the 2,611 so-called scientists had training in climate, weather or other atmospheric sciences. That is less than 1/2 of one percent. Excuse me, for being underwhelmed. Perhaps more revealing is that Gore’s list of “scientists” included landscape architects, psychologists, lawyers, a philosopher, a dermatologist, a gynecologist, and a diplomat. On this flimsy basis, as only Al Gore can, he tells us that the “debate is over” and that there is complete agreement. The truth is that more than 17,000 scientists (not landscape architects, dermatologists or diplomats) have signed a petition stating, in part, that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/10/one-man-challenges-world-according-to.html Title: Re: Will the UK decision make solutions more or less likely? Post by: Major Zee Lee on October 12, 2007, 09:37:42 AM Brace yourself... Al Gore and the ICGP have got a Nobel Prize for Peace...
Title: Re: Will the UK decision make solutions more or less likely? Post by: zukiphile on October 12, 2007, 10:15:41 AM So did Arafat.
Title: Re: Will the UK decision make solutions more or less likely? Post by: jpn of Seattle on October 15, 2007, 05:20:34 PM Quote Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ By Noel Sheppard | October 9, 2007 - 00:55 ET Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth Does spreading falsehoods about AGW help or hinder the process? Does finding out that the motivation behind questioning every last detail about global warming is usually self-interested energy firms? Quote Revealed: the man behind court attack on Gore film http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2190770,00.html (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2190770,00.html)Fuel and mining magnate backed UK challenge to An Inconvenient Truth Sunday October 14, 2007 The Observer The school governor who challenged the screening of Al Gore's climate change documentary in secondary schools was funded by a Scottish quarrying magnate who established a controversial lobbying group to attack environmentalists' claims about global warming. Stewart Dimmock's high-profile fight to ban the film being shown in schools was depicted as a David and Goliath battle, with the Kent school governor taking on the state by arguing that the government was 'brainwashing' pupils. A High Court ruling last week that the Oscar-winning documentary would have to be screened with guidance notes to balance its claims was welcomed by climate-change sceptics. The Observer has established that Dimmock's case was supported by a powerful network of business interests with close links to the fuel and mining lobbies. He was also supported by a Conservative councillor in Hampshire, Derek Tipp. Records filed at the Electoral Commission show the New Party has received nearly all of its money - almost £1m between 2004 and 2006 - from Cloburn Quarry Limited, based in Lanarkshire. In 2004 the alliance co-authored a report with the George C Marshall Institute, a US body funded by Exxon Mobil, that attacked climate change claims. 'Climate change science has fallen victim to heated political and media rhetoric ... the result is extensive misunderstanding,' the report's authors said. I wonder if these nuts believe the Earth was created 4,000 years ago, too.
Powered by SMF 1.1.5 |
SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC
Joomla Bridge by JoomlaHacks.com |